Vermont Supreme Court Rules Cash-Only Bonds Unconstitutional

In a decision handed down last week, the Vermont Supreme Court has held that cash only bonds are unconstitutional. The case involves Henry Hance Jr., who was held on a $60,000 cash-only bond for felony DWI (8th offense), possession of cocaine, and driving while suspended. Hance failed to appear and left the state. He was captured and extradited back to Vermont five months later. The court then issued the cash-only bond. Hance asked for a bond review and the conditions were unchanged. He appealed and eventually the case was heard by the Vermont Supreme Court. The high court ruled that although the state statutes allowed cash-only bonds, the Vermont State Constitution prohibited it. The court stated in its ruling, “Our Constitution provides that ‘all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.’ To permit imposition of cash-only bail would impermissibly restrict an accused's ability to negotiate with a surety to avoid pretrial confinement upon a promise of appearance. When viewed in its historical context, it is apparent that the term ‘surety’ in Vermont's Constitution refers to a third party who guarantees the accused's appearance in exchange for accepting the substantial financial obligation that will be imposed should the accused fail to appear. Thus, the intervention of a surety is a critical mechanism for protecting the rights of the accused as well as the interests of the courts. Denying a defendant the right to be bailable by sufficient surety, ignores the need to reconcile the right to freedom during trial and pending judicial review with the legitimate interest of having defendant appear, and violates the person's rights under our Constitution. In a case such as this one, the imposition of cash-only bail is, in effect, a denial of bail under circumstances that are not constitutionally permissible.”

Missouri’s Constitution also has the “sufficient sureties” clause. I could find no opinion in Missouri court archives that speak on whether Missouri courts have ruled on this constitutional question.